The Schedule Adjustment period is the first ten business days of classes during the Fall or Spring semester. A similar period of time is designated for Summer and Winter Terms. Check the corresponding
air jordan 1 high og bred 2013 retro chevy
for exact dates.

Drop Policy

Undergraduate students can adjust their schedule (add, drop, etc.) until the close of business on the last day of the Schedule Adjustment Period. After the end of Schedule Adjustment, students are limited to dropping a maximum of 4 credits during the Drop Period. The Drop Period for undergraduate students will begin at the close of the schedule adjustment period and terminate at the end of the tenth week of classes during the Fall and Spring semesters and at a corresponding time for Summer sessions. See
Academic Deadlines
for end of schedule adjustment and last day to drop dates. A mark of "W" (withdrawal) is recorded for credits dropped during the Drop Period.

Add and Drop Classes

Students can add, drop or change course sections during the schedule adjustment period. Courses added prior to and during the schedule adjustment period will appear on students' permanent records. Courses dropped prior to or during the schedule adjustment period will not appear on the student record, nor will they count towards the number of attempts a student has for any given course.

Notes:
During the first ten days of classes students will not be charged to drop and add a course if they are of equal credit value, for example dropping CHEM 678 and adding CHEM 691 (both three credit courses), and if they are processed on the same day. This is considered an even exchange. Remember, to avoid additional charges when dropping and adding, BOTH the drop and the add must be done during the same day. Courses taken at Shady Grove and other campuses are not considered in even exchange calculations.

After the first ten days of classes even exchanges of dropped and added credits will not be accepted. Courses added and dropped after the 10th day of classes will be charged as follows: 0% refund for the drop, and 100% charge per credit for any adds.

Please read the important information on refund and penalty explanations below.

Penalties for Drops During Schedule Adjustment (Refund Schedules)

Helen Zhao responds to the claim that it is unacceptable to retain personal wealth.

According to journalist
A.Q. Smith, you’re probably living an immoral life.

In his recent article
in
Current Affairs
, Smith outright
nike w air max thea joli qsc 1cCNxYJ
the obscenely rich for their wealth, but the article is not only an attack against the millionaires and billionaires of the world—in arguing that keeping any amount of wealth is immoral, it is an assault against the lifestyle enjoyed by the majority of Western society.

Smith’s logic can be boiled down to the following excerpt: “Because every dollar you have is a dollar you’re not giving to somebody else, the decision to retain wealth is a decision to deprive others.”

What follows is a condemnation of the wealthy’s most outrageous spending habits. There is nothing scandalous about critiquing the rich; there are few among us who would find nothing incongruous about seeing in succession on one’s Facebook feed an
article
on the world’s most expensive pair of earrings ($57 million) and a
video
on the famine in Yemen.

This line of reasoning is not new. It has perhaps been examined most thoroughly by utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer, who offers the following thought experiment: suppose a child is drowning in a pool, and you are walking by on your way to class. Are you not morally obliged to step in and save the child? Most people agree that a moral obligation exists, and inaction is thus morally wrong. Singer then points to the “drowning children” of the world
—
for example, the thousands across the world who die each day from malaria. The charity Nothing But Nets notes on their
webpage
that sending a bednet costs just ten dollars. Is donating a small sum to save a child from malaria not equivalent to pulling a drowning child out of a pool? If it is, then it follows that a refusal to donate said ten dollars is as morally reprehensible as walking past a drowning child without offering to help.

The natural conclusion to both Smith and Singer’s arguments is that all of us who live lives of comfort and frivolity are living immorally. Both protest this. Smith attempts to defend the assertion that moral duty becomes greater the more wealth you have, claiming the existence of some “maximum moral income” above which it is morally wrong to keep any money one may earn. First, there is the obvious fact that any such “maximum moral income” would be impossible in practice to determine. Should it be based upon what a person needs to survive? To flourish? To self-actualize? All of these are nebulous concepts with no universal dollar amounts attached. Second, this runs contrary to his most important line of reasoning: that it is wrong to use money for any purpose other than helping those who need it more. To illustrate this point, let us consider an amendment to Singer’s analogy.

The Salon now has a permanent home and we did it together! A community of supporters made a 28 year dream come true. Watch the short film that helped it happen! Many thanks to John Gross, director and editor.